User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/8/2013 2:17:58 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2013 2:25:23 PM EDT
[#1]
I wish consumers wouldn't demand a product like this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2013 2:35:34 PM EDT
[#2]
Disappointing to me.
Love Colt as though I do, their licensed products are not terribly strong. Engraved markings and lack of Colt "C" marks on major components would seem to imply that they are not Colt Hartford parts. Unstaked castle nut is odd as well. Unimpressed, though I feared this would be what it was. ~Augee |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2013 2:35:35 PM EDT
[#3]
So they made it light by eliminating the ejection port door?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2013 3:25:18 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
I wish consumers wouldn't demand a product like this. After all this panic settles down, and prices are back to "normal", this rifle will cost just a little less than a LE 6920. I have a couple theories about this rifle, the reason for this rifle, and I hope I am wrong. I love the Colt name, the history, the products, pretty much everything Colt. I don't like this rifle, I don't think it deserves the Colt name. DR |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2013 3:37:53 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
So they made it light by eliminating the ejection port door? And the forward assist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2013 4:27:38 PM EDT
[#6]
Sportical
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2013 4:31:27 PM EDT
[#7]
Very Nice close ups, but do you have some wide angle shots?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2013 5:00:25 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
So they made it light by eliminating the ejection port door? And the forward assist. I prefer it with both, if I want that I would build a retro. He can always just change the upper though. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2013 9:23:07 PM EDT
[#9]
I really dig the lower rollmark. One of those with "M4A1 CARBINE" instead would be a sick build lower!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2013 10:46:44 PM EDT
[#10]
On a bright note, the haters can stop complaining about the web on the lower. But I agree with the above remarks and this rifle is not my thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2013 7:19:02 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
On a bright note, the haters can stop complaining about the web on the lower. But I agree with the above remarks and this rifle is not my thing. I suspect this has less to do with Colt deciding to stop using the sear web and more with the fact that they are not making the 6900 lowers in house.
Though who knows, it could be part of the "2013 Configuration." ~Augee |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2013 7:43:14 AM EDT
[#12]
Looks like a DPMS with Colt markings.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2013 8:19:57 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Looks like a DPMS with Colt markings. It sure does.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2013 9:22:22 AM EDT
[#14]
first the Colt .22, then the CR series and now this... meh
Colt should be more careful licensing his brand name |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2013 9:19:57 PM EDT
[#15]
Embarrassing
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2013 9:23:01 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Embarrassing To say the least... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2013 9:50:43 PM EDT
[#17]
The probably shaved quite a bit of money off the cost of the upper, which means they can build more profit in.
I would use one for a hunting rifle if i were inclined to make a rifle for that purpose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2013 8:38:11 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
The probably shaved quite a bit of money off the cost of the upper, which means they can build more profit in. I would use one for a hunting rifle if i were inclined to make a rifle for that purpose. I would be quite surprised if there is a genuine "Colt" part on that rifle. My guess is that this rifle is manufactured by a third party simply on a variance of Colt's FFL, that way they can put Hartford, CT on the gun, without the gun ever having been to Connecticut, or subjected to the costs of union labor. With that said, a couple of the Colt licensed guns (Gatling Gun and CR line) are very well built, and to me pretty cool. What I don't like is a "cheapening up" of a gun that bears the Colt LE69XX markings. DR |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2013 2:40:38 PM EDT
[#19]
Yuk!! Thats a nasty looking rifle, I've seen airsoft toys that look more authentic than that!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2013 2:43:03 PM EDT
[#20]
I'm betting that is a Smith and Wesson MP15 Sport under the Colt markings.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2013 3:32:36 PM EDT
[#21]
The 1-in-8" twist is an interesting departure from Colt's norm. Not something I would've expected, but I kind of like it.
I'd like to see Colt introduce a midlength. In fact, as successful as those products have been for other manufacturers, I'm surprised they haven't done so already. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2013 7:59:56 PM EDT
[#22]
Doesn't look like a Colt to me....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 5:27:56 AM EDT
[#23]
No "C MP" on the barrel? Like someone said earlier about the "C" forge mark, these missing items are standard on all Colt ARs and to flood the market with products that are missing them only adds to aftermarket confusion, etc...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 5:49:11 AM EDT
[#24]
found another pic on TOS.
the only Colt thing here is the manual and maybe the 20rnd mag..  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 12:15:04 PM EDT
[#25]
Looks like it was built (possibly by S&W?) subcontracted (due to the lack of normal Colt Markings) in order to give Colt a full product line - "Inexpensive AR to MILSPEC M4 to Piston AR to .308/Convertable AR" Covering All Bases!
By itself, not necessarily a bad thing - as entry level guns get people into the hobby, and then they get the bug, and rebuild it and/or buy upward. Let's see what it looks like if it makes production, given the current Political climate. CC PS - Midlength is supperflous sillyness - unless civilian bayonet drill is in your future! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 3:42:40 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Looks like it was built (possibly by S&W?) subcontracted (due to the lack of normal Colt Markings) in order to give Colt a full product line - "Inexpensive AR to MILSPEC M4 to Piston AR to .308/Convertable AR" Covering All Bases! By itself, not necessarily a bad thing - as entry level guns get people into the hobby, and then they get the bug, and rebuild it and/or buy upward. Let's see what it looks like if it makes production, given the current Political climate. CC PS - Midlength is supperflous sillyness - unless civilian bayonet drill is in your future! This rifle is in production, it was purchased in a retail store. They are on gunbroker. As for being entry level, there is less than a $150 difference between the dealer price of this rifle and a LE6920. I know which rifle I would rather have. Eventually it will come out where these are produced and who produces them. In 30 years, the Hartford, CT colts will be known as the "real Col'ts". |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 4:26:52 PM EDT
[#27]
I would call it a bad photoshop! Please tell me today isn't April 1st
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 5:17:39 PM EDT
[#28]
Do we know that they are not made by colt?
My dealer had a few for 859. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 5:47:00 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Do we know that they are not made by colt? My dealer had a few for 859. No, we do not. My guess is that they are not made by Colt. With that said, I have been wrong before! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2013 5:18:29 PM EDT
[#30]
its a simple cheaply made entry level gun meant for a certain type of buyer. No one has to buy one if they dont want it.
I dont know why some of you are so upset or surprised by it. Nor do I see why it matters who made it. Colt has to try to make it in obamas economy just like everyone else. The wars are winding down for good or bad and with that, goes giant amounts of money spent on weapons for troops. if people didnt buy and want shitty, cheap made guns, then MFGs wouldnt have to make them. corner cutting and focus on how pretty it is makes the ignorant gun buyers look for the wrong qualities. That is what sells. And the makers see this and make their own version. blame it on the "just as good" and "fit and finish" crowd. if anyone |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2013 5:33:02 PM EDT
[#31]
My only question is why does it have an m4 barrel instead of a actual .625 light barrel?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2013 6:18:46 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Embarrassing Highly........ugh |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2013 6:39:31 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
My only question is why does it have an m4 barrel instead of a actual .625 light barrel? why? if the purpose is a rifle that is fast, easy and cheap to make, why would they go through the trouble when they already have a shit load of M4 barrels on hand. Not to mention the M4 profile is the barrel profile most recognized at this point and is expected by most of the more style conscious buyers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2013 6:55:00 PM EDT
[#34]
Speed hammer? Match Trigger group from the CAR-A3 HBAR Elete?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2013 11:16:11 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
So they made it light by eliminating the ejection port door? LOL
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2013 12:42:44 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
My only question is why does it have an m4 barrel instead of a actual .625 light barrel? why? if the purpose is a rifle that is fast, easy and cheap to make, why would they go through the trouble when they already have a shit load of M4 barrels on hand. Not to mention the M4 profile is the barrel profile most recognized at this point and is expected by most of the more style conscious buyers. I don't know about that Shawn... From the looks of everything, nothing on that gun is Colt, which throws your "shit load of M4 barrels on hand" theory out the window. I think Colt has provided some manufacturer with a license to build under the Colt name without any oversight whatsoever. And I agree. If they market the damn thing as a light weight carbine, it should have a light weight barrel on it, regardless of who manufactures it. ETA: It looks like a shitty RRA to me... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2013 8:15:52 AM EDT
[#37]
What? Colt has no castle nut staking? I've seen a forward assist being a needed thing sometimes after new gas rings are installed and things are stiff. How much could a dust cover cost?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2013 11:08:02 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
What? Colt has no castle nut staking? I've seen a forward assist being a needed thing sometimes after new gas rings are installed and things are stiff. How much could a dust cover cost? This thing is as much a "Colt" rifle as the Competition rifles, and rim-fire models. I applaud Colt for expanding it's consumer market, but I'm not sure that I would put my name on a product that doesn't reflect the company motto: "Quality makes it a Colt". |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 11:06:14 AM EDT
[#39]
That thing is fugly. They might have made them because they can build them quicker. Since it's "Light Carbine" a lightweight profile barrel would be the first feature I'd look for. If you'e going to pull the ejection port cover and webbing for weight, why not use a lightweight profile barrel? What's the weight?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 3:00:09 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
That thing is fugly. They might have made them because they can build them quicker. Since it's "Light Carbine" a lightweight profile barrel would be the first feature I'd look for. If you'e going to pull the ejection port cover and webbing for weight, why not use a lightweight profile barrel? What's the weight? Most of the weight I've seen advertised are 6.0 lbs empty, that's a little lighter than the 6720 LE LW carbine which are 6.125 lbs empty and for comparison the LE6920 M4 carbine with detachable carry handle are 6.95 lbs empty. I'm thinking the same as you, they should have used a lightweight barrel profile but the M4 profile might be cheaper in bulk, this model is just my second choice in case the AR prices don't come down in the future, I'm saving about a couple of hundred more to get another LE6920. But if I ended up with this model I'll just replace the barrel myself with a Colt lightweight profile barrel and it will be my dedicated plinker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 1:44:21 PM EDT
[#41]
I for one like it. I got to play with one today and no it's not the Colt's were use to but with S&W and DPMS offering a budget model I can't see why not. I do like the new lower markings for this model so you can easily distinguish from 'normal' Colts. But I don't like that they used the LE designation for this model. I also though when the box said "Light Carbine" I was a little confused when I pulled it out and it was a M4 profile, it should be a true lightweight. I was surprised with the Colt Match trigger and 1/8 twist, very nice. The integral trigger guard does resemble the S&W Sport, no prob, as I like it also. The missing forward assist and dust cover are not an issue as long as you look at this rifle as an entry level or budget rifle. Overall I was pleased with its appearance and feel but someone needs to test one to see if it is worth sht. The local shop was asking $1399 for it and I'm so glad I have plenty and am not hurting for an AR in this current craze.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2013 5:23:38 AM EDT
[#42]
A lot of dubious assumptions here. While i agree that it would be interesting to see some more info on these, I'm half expecting a lot of people to start kicking themselves in the butt for not getting multiples of these when they were cheap/plentiful.
Saying that it looks like a "shitty x-brand...." From a couple of crappy pics says a lot more about the poster than it reveals about the gun. Colt is well known to use up parts from another rifle before moving onto another newer part. That might explain the barrels right there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2013 6:51:02 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
A lot of dubious assumptions here. While i agree that it would be interesting to see some more info on these, I'm half expecting a lot of people to start kicking themselves in the butt for not getting multiples of these when they were cheap/plentiful. Saying that it looks like a "shitty x-brand...." From a couple of crappy pics says a lot more about the poster than it reveals about the gun. Colt is well known to use up parts from another rifle before moving onto another newer part. That might explain the barrels right there. Whether made by Colt or not, that barrel is not a barrel that is used on any other Colt production weapon. Nor is the upper, nor the lower, ect. The obvious parts commonality based on photographs is small, again, irrespective of where it was made at. This is disappointing, and Colt has been known to license its name out and allow it to be used for lesser products. Those who like Colts and Colt parts have learned to look for the hallmarks of a "real Colt compenent," and this has none of them. It may very well be an excellent value/bargain/budget rifle, but it lacks most all indications of being a Colt product of the same stripe as the LE and MT series. ::shrug:: it is largely irrelevant as I am not in the market that this gun, Hartford or no Hartford was aimed at, though it would have been pretty cool if Colt had released a budget rifle using their standard uppers, lowers, and BCG (and other small parts), as I typically re-barrel factory Colts anyways - but it probably would not have saved much money over a relatively standard Colt carbine model anyways, then. ~Augee |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2013 2:33:22 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My only question is why does it have an m4 barrel instead of a actual .625 light barrel? why? if the purpose is a rifle that is fast, easy and cheap to make, why would they go through the trouble when they already have a shit load of M4 barrels on hand. Not to mention the M4 profile is the barrel profile most recognized at this point and is expected by most of the more style conscious buyers. I don't know about that Shawn... From the looks of everything, nothing on that gun is Colt, which throws your "shit load of M4 barrels on hand" theory out the window. I think Colt has provided some manufacturer with a license to build under the Colt name without any oversight whatsoever. And I agree. If they market the damn thing as a light weight carbine, it should have a light weight barrel on it, regardless of who manufactures it. ETA: It looks like a shitty RRA to me... They are made by Colt MFG. Down the hall from Colt Defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2013 3:22:45 PM EDT
[#45]
I have an option on one at 1400, told seller no thanks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2013 4:05:46 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Embarrassing More so than Colt's disinterest in your ability to own one? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2013 4:36:51 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
A lot of dubious assumptions here. While i agree that it would be interesting to see some more info on these, I'm half expecting a lot of people to start kicking themselves in the butt for not getting multiples of these when they were cheap/plentiful. Saying that it looks like a "shitty x-brand...." From a couple of crappy pics says a lot more about the poster than it reveals about the gun. Colt is well known to use up parts from another rifle before moving onto another newer part. That might explain the barrels right there. Whether made by Colt or not, that barrel is not a barrel that is used on any other Colt production weapon. Nor is the upper, nor the lower, ect. The obvious parts commonality based on photographs is small, again, irrespective of where it was made at. This is disappointing, and Colt has been known to license its name out and allow it to be used for lesser products. Those who like Colts and Colt parts have learned to look for the hallmarks of a "real Colt compenent," and this has none of them. It may very well be an excellent value/bargain/budget rifle, but it lacks most all indications of being a Colt product of the same stripe as the LE and MT series. ::shrug:: it is largely irrelevant as I am not in the market that this gun, Hartford or no Hartford was aimed at, though it would have been pretty cool if Colt had released a budget rifle using their standard uppers, lowers, and BCG (and other small parts), as I typically re-barrel factory Colts anyways - but it probably would not have saved much money over a relatively standard Colt carbine model anyways, then. ~Augee you are not telling me anything new. I am simply saying that we don't really know the story with this rifle yet. I'm not ready to throw my hands up in the air because Colt did a deal with Umarex for their .22LR toys. Sure, it is clearly not military spec like a 6920, but neither is a 6724. Interested in finding out more on it though. And as far as I am concerned, the 6920 already is their budget rifle. Anyone in the market can afford one and find one. Well except for me of course, who is stuck with the stupid Match Targets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2013 4:42:55 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My only question is why does it have an m4 barrel instead of a actual .625 light barrel? why? if the purpose is a rifle that is fast, easy and cheap to make, why would they go through the trouble when they already have a shit load of M4 barrels on hand. Not to mention the M4 profile is the barrel profile most recognized at this point and is expected by most of the more style conscious buyers. I don't know about that Shawn... From the looks of everything, nothing on that gun is Colt, which throws your "shit load of M4 barrels on hand" theory out the window. I think Colt has provided some manufacturer with a license to build under the Colt name without any oversight whatsoever. And I agree. If they market the damn thing as a light weight carbine, it should have a light weight barrel on it, regardless of who manufactures it. ETA: It looks like a shitty RRA to me... They are made by Colt MFG. Down the hall from Colt Defense. Can you provide us with the source of your info? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2013 5:33:08 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My only question is why does it have an m4 barrel instead of a actual .625 light barrel? why? if the purpose is a rifle that is fast, easy and cheap to make, why would they go through the trouble when they already have a shit load of M4 barrels on hand. Not to mention the M4 profile is the barrel profile most recognized at this point and is expected by most of the more style conscious buyers. I don't know about that Shawn... From the looks of everything, nothing on that gun is Colt, which throws your "shit load of M4 barrels on hand" theory out the window. I think Colt has provided some manufacturer with a license to build under the Colt name without any oversight whatsoever. And I agree. If they market the damn thing as a light weight carbine, it should have a light weight barrel on it, regardless of who manufactures it. ETA: It looks like a shitty RRA to me... They are made by Colt MFG. Down the hall from Colt Defense. Can you provide us with the source of your info? The roll-mark above the selector. As far as I know, Colt doesn't do marking variances for their rifles. Even the Colt Competition rifles have the BI roll- mark. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2013 11:02:19 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Sure, it is clearly not military spec like a 6920, but neither is a 6724. yes but the 6724 is still a product made in house by Colt and BCG, receivers and other parts are the same used on the 6920. for obvious reasons the only non-Colt parts are the barrel (still MP tested) and the Match Trigger. Quoted:
The roll-mark above the selector. As far as I know, Colt doesn't do marking variances for their rifles. Even the Colt Competition rifles have the BI roll- mark. even the Walther .22lr M4 has the Colt markings above the selector 
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
